Dismissed

Vinayak Uttamrao Banchod v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission through Its Deputy Secretary and Others

Bombay HC19 Jan 2018RA/17/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petitioner challenged the dismissal of his writ petition regarding Maharashtra PSC recruitment selection criteria. The Bench rejected arguments that equal marks necessitate joint candidature and that a female applicant under NT-B should be considered as a woman candidate. The review was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed with no costs.

Vinayak Uttamrao Banchod Vs Maharashtra Public Service… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

( 1 ) revapln17.18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

REVIEW PETITION NO.17 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10998 OF 2016

¶4

Vinayak S/o. Uttamrao Banchod

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Maharashtra Public Service Commission..Respondent

¶8

Mr.S.S.Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.A.S.Shinde, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr.M.B.Kolpe, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 3

¶9

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :19.01.2018

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

.The petitioner seeks review of the order passed
by this Court dismissing the writ petition and upholding
the judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.

¶12

2.Mr.Jadhavar, Learned Advocate for the petitioner
submits that at the time of hearing the writ petition the
respondents did not place the correct facts on record.
From NT-B category two candidates were securing 104
marks. They have to be considered as one and in that
manner five candidates are required to be called for one
post. Learned Advocate further submits that the said

¶13

( 2 ) revapln17.18

¶14

procedure was followed in case of open competition
category and other categories also. According to the
learned counsel one of the candidates in NT-B category is
a women as such ought to be considered from woman
category and one of the candidates who had secured 98
marks does not find place in the final list of qualified
candidates. According to the learned counsel this fact is
not considered by this Court and as such there is an
error apparent on the face of record.

¶15

3.We had asked the learned counsel for the
petitioner regarding any rule, circular, government
resolution to the effect that if two candidates secure
the same marks they have to be treated as one, for
considering ratio of the candidates to be called for the
post. No such rule, Government resolution or circular is
pointed out to that effect. The said fact also does not
stand to any reason. The petitioner has secured 90 marks.
There are two candidates who had secured 104 marks. Two
candidates cannot be considered as one. They will have to
be considered as two candidates.

¶16

4.The other contention that the woman candidate
ought to have been considered from woman category also
would not be legally correct as there was no horizontal

¶17

( 3 ) revapln17.18

¶18

reservation in NT-B category and the said woman has
applied from NT-B category and as such would not be
considered in any other category. In view of the above,
no error apparent on the face of record. The review
petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶19

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶20

VishalK/ revapln17.18

Vinayak Uttamrao Banchod v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission through Its Deputy Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinayak Uttamrao Banchod v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission through Its Deputy Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Prabhakar Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Authorised Officer Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Another Vs Shivshakti Kraft Board Mills Pvt. Ltd. through Its Managing Director and Others

Martha Devidas Rathod Vs Scheduled Caste Denotified Tribe through Its Member Secretary and Anothers

Umesh Baburao Thale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Krishna Sahebraoji Patil Dongaonkar and Ors. Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Indumati Tukaram Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others